Resolv local network names [Newbie question]

[Mark Andrews]

> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> 
> > The original poster specifically asked about using BIND to resolve local
> > names. BIND doesn't use /etc/hosts for resolving queries.
> 
> Yes, but I strongly suspect that his main purpose was not to get BIND
> resolving those just for the sake of BIND doing it, but only to have
> other programs on his machine use this information, in which case
> /etc/hosts would be fine. And I was reasonably clear that this would be
> for the one machine only.

	Actually, you want the DNS to do it as there will be lookups
	which are not covered by /etc/hosts occuring.
 
> >> It doesn't matter at all that it's a private range; that has no
> >> connection with how records (at least, non-inaddr.arpa or "reverse"
> >> records) resolve.
> > Please read what I wrote. "... it's likely that other folks are already
> > using it for their own purposes, or they want to reserve the option of
> > doing so".
> 
> And they can continue doing so, with no problems whatsoever, unless the
> original poster happens to want matching inaddr.arpa entries, which is
> often not necessary. (Nice, yes, but absolutely necessary, often not.)
> 
> > Granted, being in a private address range doesn't *directly*
> > affect how DNS names resolve, but it may affect the *availability* of
> > other people and/or organizations to be master for the zone....
> 
> I don't see why. It's perfectly possible to have several a single server
> resolving different names from different organizations to the same IP
> address, that would route differently depending on where you use it. A
> server has no problem returning, say, 192.168.1.1 for both foo.a.com and
> bar.b.com.
> 
>      $ host lyric.cjs.cynic.net. ns1.cynic.net.
>      Using domain server:
>      Name: ns1.cynic.net.
>      Address: 125.100.126.243#53
>      Aliases:
> 
>      lyric.cjs.cynic.net has address 192.168.187.11
> 
> > For DNS and pretty much any other "core" network service, practically
> > speaking, persistent IP addresses are considered a prerequisite.
> 
> Perhaps you consider this a prerequesite, but I've successfully run
> these sorts of things within and between organizations while using
> RFC1918 addresses extensively. (I assume you really meant RFC 1918
> addresses where you said "persistent" addresses; you really need to sort
> out your terminology.)
> 
> cjs
> -- 
> Curt Sampson			+81 90 7737 2974
> <cjs at cynic.net>			http://www.starling-software.com
>    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
>    by those who have not got it.    --George Bernard Shaw
> 
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org